Perceptions of poverty

[regentrude]

A bad questionnaire. Too broad, yes and no options don't work.

I know people without cars, microwaves and TVs who are definitely not poor.

And I know poor car and microwave owners.

Same for A/C... millions of well off people without AC. There was no A/C or microwave a few decades ago- does that mean they were all poor back then?

And the income: how many people, which are of the country?

[Hen]

it would have helped if the poll stated if the questions were for the US or for the World in general.

[twoforjoy]

A microwave is a luxury, in my opinion, not a basic necessity.

 

You can get small microwaves now for $50 new. I don't think a microwave fits easily into the "luxury" category.

 

Plus, if somebody has a broken or unreliable oven, or no oven, they might rely on their microwave to cook.

[twoforjoy]

Hmmm, needs clarification. I do know many people that are impovishered educationally and will ask for money rather than consider eating game, keeping chicken, fishing, raising a garden, or gathering food that grows in the wild. I can't say they lack access to food even though they won't do the work necessary to get what's available onto the dinner plate.

 

You need some basic resources to begin or do those things, though.

 

If you want to eat game, you need hunting equipment, a hunting license, and transportation and access to a place to hunt.

 

If you want to keep chickens, you need to live in an area that allows it, have the space to keep them, and have food to feed them.

 

If you want to fish, you need equipment and transportation and access to a place where you can fish, as well as a place to safely store the fish you catch.

 

If you want to garden, you need a plot you can garden on, seeds, information, time, and tools.

 

If you want to pick food in the wild, you need knowledge of what's safe and what's not, and probably would be better off having some medical care available in case you get sick.

 

I can't imagine, personally, assuming that if somebody didn't do one or all of those things the reason would be that they were just too lazy to want to do the work. I just can't fathom making that assumption. I tend to assume that other people are at least as hard-working as I am, and if they aren't doing something, there's probably a good reason for it.

[justamouse]

I'm kinda astounded at the results. Seems as if it was a party line vote, all down the board.

 

 

Sad.

[dangermom]

OK, I did it, but some of the questions needed improvement. Lack of a microwave doesn't make you poor, but most people need a fridge. And I picked $0-20K, because I think $20K is poor, but 40 is not. 30 is a maybe.

[SKL]

The income question should be defined as "a family of x" or "an individual." I chose $20K-$40K because if you had a big enough family, $20K could be below subsistence, but for a small family or individual it would not be.

 

The fridge/nuker question, I read as, does a person need all three of these. I chose disagree, because you don't need a nuker. And actually, you don't need a stove or fridge either, if you have access to three meals some other way.

[mommyrooch]

You need some basic resources to begin or do those things, though.

 

If you want to eat game, you need hunting equipment, a hunting license, and transportation and access to a place to hunt.

 

If you want to keep chickens, you need to live in an area that allows it, have the space to keep them, and have food to feed them.

 

If you want to fish, you need equipment and transportation and access to a place where you can fish, as well as a place to safely store the fish you catch.

 

If you want to garden, you need a plot you can garden on, seeds, information, time, and tools.

 

If you want to pick food in the wild, you need knowledge of what's safe and what's not, and probably would be better off having some medical care available in case you get sick.

 

I can't imagine, personally, assuming that if somebody didn't do one or all of those things the reason would be that they were just too lazy to want to do the work. I just can't fathom making that assumption. I tend to assume that other people are at least as hard-working as I am, and if they aren't doing something, there's probably a good reason for it.

 

:iagree: Well said!

[Annabel Lee]

Holly (OP), I took the poll for your dd but I took the questions very literally w/o taking any bigger picture into consideration as other posters have discussed. I took the questions at face value, i.e., I took the one about the phone to mean "are you impoverished for not having a cell phone?"

 

People living near/at America's poverty line are filthy rich compared to most worldwide suffering. I'm glad to see most of us agree that food, shelter, and medical care are basic needs.

 

Even if you don't have a fishing license, money for equipment, etc., there is knowledge available for making do off the land. I'd venture to say most people in the U.S. wouldn't think to even begin looking for that information. It's available at the library, or if you know or can introduce yourself to Native Americans or other indigenous tribes, someone within usually has a wealth of knowledge about subsistence living (not a blanket statement - I know many old ways are becoming lost, but some do live on in oral tradition, as does in a friend of mine).

 

I didn't vote that a fridge is necessary because you can dry, can, smoke, or freeze food depending on what else you have available. My parents dug a deep hole, lined it with visquine (sp?), and covered the top w/ plywood. The area near the bottom stayed frozen and nearer the top was the "fridge". This was in the '70s when in their early years as a couple, living off the land while they built a house out of their pockets (no mortgage). My dad smoked most of the fish over fire. No fancy equipment needed.

 

As for microwave, no, because those are bad for you anyhow. Use the oven or the fire. Build a woodstove out of an old 50-gal barrel if you can't keep a fire going.

 

The military screwed up DH's pay after we got married so that instead of adding housing/dependent allowance, they subtracted a small amount from what he previously made. We ended up living off less than the "poverty level" that year until they fixed it, even with my income. It's not a pleasant existence when you look around and compare, feeling like everyone else has it so good... but it's certainly not real, life or death poverty.

 

When you don't know where you're going to find warmth to not get frostbite, or shade/cool to not get severe blistering sunburn or dehydration (although AC isn't necessary for this - there are other methods... I've lived it in SoCal); when you don't have a clue where you'll find food; when you are sick with illness that cures/help *do* exist for but they are out of your reach... that is definitely poverty.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Annabel Lee

[Lucy the Valiant]

I live in New England, so I sort-of flipped the A/C question to mean heat - where I live, if you do not have heat in your home, you are definitely impoverished. Hippie or urban chickie, you need heat.

 

I'm assuming the south is the same re: A/C.

[anabelneri]

OK, I did it, but some of the questions needed improvement. Lack of a microwave doesn't make you poor, but most people need a fridge. And I picked $0-20K, because I think $20K is poor, but 40 is not. 30 is a maybe.

 

As others have said, this would depend on family size and location. For example, in the town I just moved out of the median income for a family is $153,197. Living there on less than $60,000 is rough! My new place isn't much better; it's only one town over and Google keeps hiring.

 

Good luck to the high schooler doing this project!

:)

[cindergretta]

I answered as best I could. :) I left the last one (income) blank.

 

Keep tweaking. It is a great idea for a poll. After reading here, you can probably see ways to improve it. For a teen in high school, why would you necessarily discern this from that unless it is pointed out? :grouphug:

[IsabelC]

Although I pretty much the same issues to most of those already mentioned. I'm not meaning to criticize Megans's work as she's a teenager, not a professional survey writer (and by the by, I have seen surveys made by adults who were paid to do it, that were far worse than this one in terms of clarity and ease of answering). Not only is creating good surveys a very specific skill, but also the less previous study and the less life experience you have behind you, the more difficult it is to predict the range of responses and construct appropriate answer options. So I hope Megan will take the comments in this thread in the spirit of constructive feedback on her methodology, as it's important to learn this kind of stuff if you want to get really useful information back.

 

I understand that she is looking at perceptions of poverty, and as such expects that people will have differing perceptions. However there is such a wide range of possible definitions that one person is likely to perceive it differently in different contexts. I'm wondering whether the addition of an open question or two (apart from the religion one, which might be better with options to check) may prove worth the extra analysis? Also, has she considered expanding the answer options, for example to encompass yes/no/maybe instead of limiting it to agree/disagree. Or there could be two parts, with the first part being a straightforward list of assets where the respondent checks to indicate that not having the item indicates poverty, and the second speaking to the non material considerations.

 

 

 

Just looking at my family, we have a microwave, a fridge, two cars (but one only because it's tax deductable)and a washing machine. We have home internet, but only because it's needed for work purposes. I have a cell phone, but only for occasional use (rarely topped up prepaid), and likewise I possess a clothes dryer but couldn't afford to use it all the time. We don't have a television by choice and don't have air conditioning because that's not normal where I live (but we have a wood heater and can afford enough wood if we're reasonably careful with it). I have pretty good access to medical care, but probably wouldn't if we lived in the US, as we rely partly on the comparatively generous public health system over here.

 

Our income is considered rather low and we are eligible for some government assistance.

 

We consider ourselves wealthy because we have the means to meet all our needs and quite a few of our wants, and because we are wealthy compared to others around the world.

 

ETA - you can check here to find out how rich your are on the global scale.

(The median figure looks to be around US$850pa)

Edited October 20, 2011 by Hotdrink

[JustGin]

The only question I thought was difficult was the one that lumped a microwave in with a refrigerator. Refrigeration is a necessity of modern life, a microwave is not.

[IsabelC]

The only question I thought was difficult was the one that lumped a microwave in with a refrigerator. Refrigeration is a necessity of modern life, a microwave is not.

Refrigeration might be a necessity for some people, but it certainly isn't for everyone, especially not vegans. I know plenty of crunchy types who have chosen to do without it for both environmental reasons and voluntary simplicity (which isn't the same thing as poverty).

[HollyinNNV]

Dear All,

Thanks you so much for your contributions to this thread! And thank you to those who took the poll. Megan and I have learned so much from reading your comments. This project was assigned by the Ap Government teacher for PA homeschoolers. There are three girls that created the poll and will take your comments and learn from them.

 

If nothing else, Megan has learned that the creation of a poll is very challenging! She has agreed with many of your suggestions for improving the poll, especially regarding the microwave and income questions.

 

I know that the girls would love to have more democrat responders, as well as more men responders. If you know any....:)

 

Have a great day,

Holly

[vonfirmath]

 

Honestly though, the one I had the hardest time with was air conditioning. In the Northern U.S. (or in Germany, where I lived in relative comfort without a/c), it would not be a problem. In Texas, it could be a life-threatening issue during the hottest parts of the summer.

 

Maybe...

except Texas was colonized before air conditioning.

 

and I grew up with a/c we never ran because we could not afford it (in Houston) I would consider us lower middle class

[emzhengjiu]

Maybe...

except Texas was colonized before air conditioning. and I grew up with a/c we never ran because we could not afford it (in Houston) I would consider us lower middle class

 

Yes, but in Texas every year people die from heat related issues. As a society, do we just ignore them or do we consider it a poverty related situation to be alleviated?

 

Ann

[Alessandra]

The poll is a fun idea, but it has way to many variables, IMO. Is dd looking to prove something -- like that younger people think of electronics, appliances, etc as life necessities?

 

 

You are impoverished if you don't have a cell phone.

No -- cell phones didn't exist for most of my life

 

You are impoverished if you don't own a car.

N0 -- if you live where there is good public transportation

 

You are impoverished if you don't have in-home access to the internet.

No

 

You are impoverished if you don't have access to nutritious food.

YES

 

You are impoverished if you don't have reasonable shelter.

YES

 

You are impoverished if you don't have a television.

No - many choose not to have TV

 

You are impoverished if you don't have air conditioning.

No

 

You are impoverished if you don't have a microwave, oven, and refrigerator.

People should hvae some means to cook & store food, unless, like Eloise, they live in a hotel, lol

 

You are impoverished if you don't have a clothes washer and dryer.

No

 

You are impoverished if you don't have access to medical care.

No, not in the U.S. But that is sad.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Alessandra

[Just Robyn]

You are impoverished if you don't own a car.

 

Where I live - with wide open spaces and many rural homes, long distances between shops - a car is pretty necessary. In the city, not so much. I voted impoverish on this because of where I live. If I lived in a large city, I would see a vehicle as more of an expensive luxery.

 

Right. If we didn't have a car we wouldn't be able to get to work. Then we would quickly be homeless and starving (although I suppose we would get free food somewhere). We live in a city, but not a city with good enough public transportation for people with children to get by without a car.

[Renee in NC]

Just an interesting FYI regarding cell phones. In many developing nations, cell phones are becoming more of the norm because they take much, much less infrastructure than landlines.

 

More than half the world's population now pay to use a mobile phone and nearly a quarter use the internet, as developing countries rapidly adopt new communications technologies.

 

By the end of last year there were an estimated 4.1bn mobile subscriptions, up from 1bn in 2002, according to a report published today by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), an agency of the UN.

 

That represents six-in-ten of the world's population, with developing countries accounting for about two-thirds of the mobile phones in use, compared with less than half of subscriptions in 2002.

 

 

Developing countries drive explosion in global mobile phone use

 

Maybe it isn't such a luxury after all.;) We have cell phones, but no landline. Why waste the money on a landline?

[Audrey]

I was surprised at the results. I was surprised at the number of people who think lack of refrigerator or a/c = poverty.

 

I realise that most Americans and Canadians don't think of true poverty (3rd world impoverishment) when answering these types of questions. I realise it asked for one's "perception of poverty" and that's a very subjective thing. I guess I'm just surprised that so many of the perceptions were so bourgeois and self-centred.

[Joyofsixreboot]

Yes, some of the questions were open to interpretation. I also didn't know what size family for the income. That said we don't have a/c, dh has no cell (I have a tracfone for safety reasons), no microwave (it broke) and a few other things. A car is pretty necessary where I live. DH has to get to work and it's 20 miles away. I don't think we're impoverished! For that reason I voted no to those questions.

[beaners]

Just an interesting FYI regarding cell phones. In many developing nations, cell phones are becoming more of the norm because they take much, much less infrastructure than landlines.

 

 

 

Developing countries drive explosion in global mobile phone use

 

Maybe it isn't such a luxury after all.;) We have cell phones, but no landline. Why waste the money on a landline?

 

Yeah, it's surprising but there are a lot of places in developing countries with better cell and internet infrastructure than the rural US.

 

I answered the questions as if they were asking "if someone wishes to have _____, but he or she can't afford it, is that poverty?"

[In2why]

I think where you live makes a huge difference in a few of the questions. My BIL is a 1% er and doesn't own a car. He lives in NYC and very few people there own a car, they take a cab or hire a car and driver.

But where I live there isn't bus service or cabs, so if you don't have a car you can't get to work or the store, so you must have a car to survive. I answered based on where I live.

 

I had the same problem with the Microwave, Oven and Fridge question. You don't need a microwave, but you need a fridge.

[Maus]

I disagreed with almost everything. Having or not having any one of most of those things is really a lifestyle choice.

 

You do need food and shelter. If you don't have those you are impoverished.

 

I chose the largest income, because the question doesn't account for obligations/debts/etc. A retired person who has no debts, whose home is paid off, and who doesn't want to go anywhere (like my grandmother, before she passed) can live on $20,000 a year and not lack for anything. A divorced guy actually paying his child support payments (there are some) who also has a current wife and kids (like DH's BIL) can struggle with $80,000, as can families with many kids, etc.

[twoforjoy]

You are impoverished if you don't have a cell phone.

No -- cell phones didn't exist for most of my life

 

But phones did. And, today, many people, particularly poor people, have cell phones instead of landlines.

 

I think that many of us are reading these questions from a privileged standpoint. We see "cell phone" and think "on top of the landline, an extra (probably expensive) phone and plan." But, that's not going to be the case for many poor people. Their cell phone will likely be one of those pay-as-you-go deals, and it will be the only phone access they have.

 

We see "microwave oven" and think of some fancy, $200-300 model that we might sit on our counters near our nice, working oven. But, for a poor person, that might not be the case. They may be renting a room and not have an oven. They may have owned an oven at some point, but it broke, and they can't afford to replace it. They may rent and the oven that came with their apartment stopped working, and the landlord hasn't gotten around to replacing it yet. So a small $50 microwave might be the only means they have for cooking. (I saw somebody say "They use use the fire." What fire? How many poor people have working fireplaces?)

 

We see "washer and dryer" and think, "Of course you don't need that! You can just drive your clothes to the laundromat once a week and do laundry there." And, many poor people do do that. But, if you don't have a car, it's much harder to get to the laundromat. If you have to work many hours at your minimum-wage job to make ends meet, you might not have the time it takes to sit at the laundromat. If you're poor, you might not have enough clothes that you can get through a week without doing laundry.

 

I think it's very, very easy for many of us who choose to live "simpler" lifestyles than we can afford to assume that, if we had less money, we'd just make the same choices and life would be just the same. It doesn't work that way, though. If living in Detroit and around many people in poverty has taught me anything, it's that being poor is really, really hard. It's not simply "Middle class life minus luxuries." It's much harder and more complicated than that.

 

It's easy for me, with my netbook and access to a car, to think that in-home internet access is a luxury. Sure, we have it, but we could get by okay without it. However, I have students who live on the east side of Detroit. They get to campus by taking the bus or getting rides with friends, both of which are terribly inconvenient (the bus rides are long and unreliable, and when you ride with friends, you're pretty much tied to their schedule). If they don't have internet access at home that very negatively affects their school performance. Sure, they could access the internet from campus, but getting to and from campus is a burden for them. Sure, they could use one of the local libraries, but the libraries have a one-hour-per-day internet limit, and the libraries are much sparser on the east side than they are on my side of town, so again transportation can be an issue. Is it a "need" for them to have internet access at home? No, in the sense that they won't die without it. But is it necessary for them to be on an equal footing with their more privileged classmates, and so to have an equal chance of success at college (and a shot at getting out of poverty)? Yeah, I'd say it probably is.

 

Or, TVs. Sure, a TV isn't a need. But, my husband and I have seen TVs that are nicer than ours (we got ours 8 years ago or so as a present) sitting discarded in front of people's homes. So, if a poor person has a TV, it doesn't mean that they aren't poor. It doesn't mean that they have a luxury that they should sell. We'd have to pay somebody to take our TV! (It's huge and heavy and worth nothing at this point.) TVs aren't some asset that poor people are being selfish and irresponsible by keeping.

 

Anyway, that is long and rambling, but the point is just that I think it can be hard to judge, from the outside, whether or not an item is a "luxury" or "necessity" or a person who is in poverty. If you look at it from a more privileged perspective, I think it can be very easy to assume that certain things are "luxuries" that may not be.

[vonfirmath]

Yes, but in Texas every year people die from heat related issues. As a society, do we just ignore them or do we consider it a poverty related situation to be alleviated?

 

Ann

 

or perhaps an education-related situation to be resolved?

Since people did survive for at least hundreds of years before air conditioning.

 

And folks with plenty of $ to run air conditioning/go to the air conditioned mall, etc still die of heat related issues.

[justamouse]

The income was really not effective. My taxes are 15,000. It really has to do with where you live, and changing locations isn't as easy as most people make it out to be.

[justamouse]

But phones did. And, today, many people, particularly poor people, have cell phones instead of landlines.

 

I think that many of us are reading these questions from a privileged standpoint. We see "cell phone" and think "on top of the landline, an extra (probably expensive) phone and plan." But, that's not going to be the case for many poor people. Their cell phone will likely be one of those pay-as-you-go deals, and it will be the only phone access they have.

 

We see "microwave oven" and think of some fancy, $200-300 model that we might sit on our counters near our nice, working oven. But, for a poor person, that might not be the case. They may be renting a room and not have an oven. They may have owned an oven at some point, but it broke, and they can't afford to replace it. They may rent and the oven that came with their apartment stopped working, and the landlord hasn't gotten around to replacing it yet. So a small $50 microwave might be the only means they have for cooking. (I saw somebody say "They use use the fire." What fire? How many poor people have working fireplaces?)

 

We see "washer and dryer" and think, "Of course you don't need that! You can just drive your clothes to the laundromat once a week and do laundry there." And, many poor people do do that. But, if you don't have a car, it's much harder to get to the laundromat. If you have to work many hours at your minimum-wage job to make ends meet, you might not have the time it takes to sit at the laundromat. If you're poor, you might not have enough clothes that you can get through a week without doing laundry.

 

I think it's very, very easy for many of us who choose to live "simpler" lifestyles than we can afford to assume that, if we had less money, we'd just make the same choices and life would be just the same. It doesn't work that way, though. If living in Detroit and around many people in poverty has taught me anything, it's that being poor is really, really hard. It's not simply "Middle class life minus luxuries." It's much harder and more complicated than that.

 

It's easy for me, with my netbook and access to a car, to think that in-home internet access is a luxury. Sure, we have it, but we could get by okay without it. However, I have students who live on the east side of Detroit. They get to campus by taking the bus or getting rides with friends, both of which are terribly inconvenient (the bus rides are long and unreliable, and when you ride with friends, you're pretty much tied to their schedule). If they don't have internet access at home that very negatively affects their school performance. Sure, they could access the internet from campus, but getting to and from campus is a burden for them. Sure, they could use one of the local libraries, but the libraries have a one-hour-per-day internet limit, and the libraries are much sparser on the east side than they are on my side of town, so again transportation can be an issue. Is it a "need" for them to have internet access at home? No, in the sense that they won't die without it. But is it necessary for them to be on an equal footing with their more privileged classmates, and so to have an equal chance of success at college (and a shot at getting out of poverty)? Yeah, I'd say it probably is.

 

Or, TVs. Sure, a TV isn't a need. But, my husband and I have seen TVs that are nicer than ours (we got ours 8 years ago or so as a present) sitting discarded in front of people's homes. So, if a poor person has a TV, it doesn't mean that they aren't poor. It doesn't mean that they have a luxury that they should sell. We'd have to pay somebody to take our TV! (It's huge and heavy and worth nothing at this point.) TVs aren't some asset that poor people are being selfish and irresponsible by keeping.

 

Anyway, that is long and rambling, but the point is just that I think it can be hard to judge, from the outside, whether or not an item is a "luxury" or "necessity" or a person who is in poverty. If you look at it from a more privileged perspective, I think it can be very easy to assume that certain things are "luxuries" that may not be.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[twoforjoy]

I was surprised at the results. I was surprised at the number of people who think lack of refrigerator or a/c = poverty.

 

I realise that most Americans and Canadians don't think of true poverty (3rd world impoverishment) when answering these types of questions. I realise it asked for one's "perception of poverty" and that's a very subjective thing. I guess I'm just surprised that so many of the perceptions were so bourgeois and self-centred.

 

I'm not sure a valid distinction can be made between "true poverty" and first world poverty. Yes, poor people in the first world are by and large better off than poor people in the third world.

 

But, that doesn't change the fact that they are living in the first world. You cannot live a third world lifestyle in the first world. Many first world poor people are living in urban areas. What is necessary in that environment is very different than what is necessary in the third world. For example, it is very unlikely that you will be able to adequately feed yourself in an urban environment without either reliable transportation, some sort of refrigeration system, and/or some way to cook food. Going to the local market each day to buy what you need for the day and preparing it over an open fire is simply not an option.

[justamouse]

I was surprised at the results. I was surprised at the number of people who think lack of refrigerator or a/c = poverty.

 

I realise that most Americans and Canadians don't think of true poverty (3rd world impoverishment) when answering these types of questions. I realise it asked for one's "perception of poverty" and that's a very subjective thing. I guess I'm just surprised that so many of the perceptions were so bourgeois and self-centred.

 

That's like comparing apples to oranges.

 

Without some of those things here in America, you can't get a job, you can't function. You can't grow a garden everywhere, you can't go to a lake and fish-you just can't.

 

Yes, being a squatter is the lowest level of poverty, but even a squatter in Canada has healthcare.

[twoforjoy]

That's like comparing apples to oranges.

 

Without some of those things here in America, you can't get a job, you can't function. You can't grow a garden everywhere, you can't go to a lake and fish-you just can't.

 

Yes, being a squatter is the lowest level of poverty, but even a squatter in Canada has healthcare.

 

Right.

 

I don't know, I'm just very saddened by this whole conversation. Because I'm sure somebody will look at the thing I wrote about my students who don't have in-home internet access, and the extra difficulties they therefore encounter in doing their schoolwork, and will think, "Whatever. Nobody said life was easy."

 

Well, sure, nobody said life was easy. But, we live in a society where a student who needs to work 30+ hours a week to have a place to live and food to eat or who needs to take an hour-long bus ride to access the internet or who is responsible for caring for a sick parent or who may be dealing with all of those things at once is sitting alongside a student who doesn't need to work at all during college, has a family that can afford to hire somebody to care for ailing relatives, and who has devices that allow them internet access anywhere they go. (Let's not even consider that Student 1 also had all of these difficulties going through K-12 and probably went to lower-performing schools than Student 2.) Now they're in college together, in the same classes. Who is going to have an easier time studying? Who is going to have the time and energy to do an internship? Who is going to be able to take on research opportunities and get to know professors outside of class, who can write them good, detailed recommendations?

 

And then job search time comes around, and if either of them are lucky enough to get a job, it'll probably be Student 2, since they'll likely have higher grades, better recommendations, and internship experience. And then people will look at Student 1, now unemployed and probably mired in debt, and say, "Well, they should have tried harder!"

 

It's just so frustrating. No, it's infuriating. We fail to see the many, many ways that poverty already makes things harder. If there is something I'm pretty sure of, it's that any poor person is working harder than I am, just to get by on a daily basis. This idea that poor people would not be poor if they worked harder fails to take into account the ways in which poverty make doing even basic things considerably harder to start with.

 

Off my soapbox now (and I'm not ever sure how I got on it ;)).

[swellmomma]

That's like comparing apples to oranges.

 

Without some of those things here in America, you can't get a job, you can't function. You can't grow a garden everywhere, you can't go to a lake and fish-you just can't.

 

Yes, being a squatter is the lowest level of poverty, but even a squatter in Canada has healthcare.

 

:iagree: Yup. Like I said compared to the vast majority of the world I am rich. In many ways I feel like we are comfortably living the way we are, BUT the fact remains we live in poverty. Last winter we went without heat for most of the winter due to the furnace not working and not having money to fix it. It was-40C for most of the winter, my house was cold. I do have a van right now, it is old, the transmission is going and I can't afford to fix it or replace the vehicle. I live in a rural location I need a van to work, to see the dr, to get groceries etc. I am fubar big time if it breaks down before that happens. I do have a garden but in an area that has a growing season for 4 months how is one supposed to last for the other 8. I also live in a town with big restrictions about animals in town, so no backyard chicks etc. No vehicle means not even being able to drive to the stocked trout pond let alone anywhere else. My microwave is breaking (5 buttons currently don't work) I am not worried about that, but if my fridge or stove broke I am toast. I have decent shelter but it is a sticky place to be in that, my parents hold the title and therefore it is their owned property, but I am to treat it like it is mine. SO they will not replace or fix things like a landlord should, but I also have no insurance protection, no equity to borrow against etc because it is not really my house. I can not even get tenants insurance to protect my belongings because then they have to get landlord insurance rather than regular household and will not do so, nor will they draw against the home owners insurance to fix things like the basement that flooded and has mold in it and caused me to lose around $1500 worth of books, school paper, craft kits etc. So yes it is a roof over our head but it is a precarious situation anyway.

 

So yes compared to the 3rd world I am rich, but I don't live in the 3rd world, I live in the 1st world in Canada. And in Canada I am impoverished. Even with the "free" health care (which is not quite free, I had to pay for ds's cast after his car accident for his broken leg, plus if he had used crutches would have had to pay for those. IF one of us needs meds I can't afford them because they are expensive and not covered etc. I can get seen by the dr for free but can't treat the illness or injury because that part costs money that I don't have.

 

Okay that got long, but I don't think you can accurately compare 3rd world impoverishment to 1st world. I can not move my family to a 3rd world country to make us live richely kwim

[weaver_67579]

I'm kinda astounded at the results. Seems as if it was a party line vote, all down the board.

 

 

Sad.

 

What was sad about the results? I also didn't get the "party line" part. Is is political to think that having a tv isn't necessary for life? Maybe I don't read into things enough-lol

:tongue_smilie:

[emzhengjiu]

There are policies in many places in the U.S. that make it hard to live cheaply. As a single mom of two daughters, I cannot legally rent a one bedroom apartment in our area. There are legitimate reasons, overcrowding for one. But two bedroom units are much more expensive than one bedroom ones. Even sharing a single house with another family is regulated as to the number of unrelated people who can live there. So what are poor people to do? We have to lie and hope we're not caught. Moving is not always an option. Neither is moving in with friends and family. Not all of us have people with whom we could live full time. Blessed are those who do. Policies such as these make for a nicer community environment but at the expense of affordable places to live for the working poor.

 

Ann

[twoforjoy]

Why is the district requiring in -home internet access? Mine doesn't - and we are only 15% poverty with the student population. Someone needs to speak up. Or is it that the students are supposed to be using the internet at school during study hall, but someone has decided that it's not fair to take a social opportunity away from them? (not my thought -- this was one of the comments made to the BOE here when internet and project assignments requiring home expenditures were discussed).

 

I work at a university. I'd say that reliable internet access is a need for pretty much every college student today.

 

At my university, the internet is the primary means of out-of-class communication between students and instructors. My department requires that students submit their work via a plagiarism-detection program that is available through Blackboard, which is an online course management site.

 

Any college student who does not have at-home internet access is going to be at a disadvantage, educationally, compared to their classmates who do have it. Yes, access to the computer centers is provided to students, but if they don't have the money to live on campus and if they don't have a car--which is more common among poorer students, who are far more likely to not have internet access at home--their practical access to those centers is limited.

 

Can they get by? Sure. But, the point is that it will be much, much harder for them than it will be for a student who has at-home internet access, and yet the two students will be judged by the same standards when they are graded in their classes and when they are applying for jobs. The student without internet access will have to put in more work than the student who does have it just to complete the exact same task.

[twoforjoy]

More work? How?

 

Or do you mean more travel time should their job hours conflict with getting the internet access done while on campus for classes w/o adding an extra trip.

 

Perhaps more effort would have been a better way to put it. No more classwork is involved, but if you need to travel to campus to do any internet-related work, that does involve effort for most students, especially poorer students who are more likely to be working more hours, to have more family obligations, and to not own a car. It involves significantly more time and effort to do a task that a student who could access the internet from their home would have to put into it.

[justamouse]

 

It's just so frustrating. No, it's infuriating. We fail to see the many, many ways that poverty already makes things harder. If there is something I'm pretty sure of, it's that any poor person is working harder than I am, just to get by on a daily basis. This idea that poor people would not be poor if they worked harder fails to take into account the ways in which poverty make doing even basic things considerably harder to start with.

 

Off my soapbox now (and I'm not ever sure how I got on it ;)).

 

I get infuriated, too.

 

What was sad about the results? I also didn't get the "party line" part. Is is political to think that having a tv isn't necessary for life? Maybe I don't read into things enough-lol

:tongue_smilie:

 

I'm not understanding how you don't understand my comment? Look at the poll results with what percentage of Republicans voted. They were party line votes.

 

The TV is moot. I have 5 tvs in my attic that were either given to us or we bought for a few bucks. TV matters zilch. To judge a person's level of poverty on the fact that they ahve a TV and a microwave is to make a rash judgment. My TVs will probably be given away at my next garage sale.

[beaners]

 

I'm not understanding how you don't understand my comment? Look at the poll results with what percentage of Republicans voted. They were party line votes.

 

I see 43% Republicans, and most responses with around 90% agreement. I don't see only Republicans voting, but I do see most voters with similar opinions.

[Lisa in the UP of MI]

The funny thing about income is that it depends on where you live and your lifestyle. When dh was in grad school we definitely would have been considered at the poverty level based on our income but we definitely did not feel like it. We had everything that we needed and a few of our wants. We were making about $15K a year and by the time we left we were a family of 5.

[8circles]

Done. I found it difficult to answer honestly but I did my best.

[sweetstitches]

voted

[Dmmetler]

On AC/Heat the type of housing makes a difference. I'm in an area where people die when they don't have A/C in the summer-and it's not people living in houses build before A/C was common. We moved from a house built in the 1940s to one built in the 1980s, and while both had A/C by the time we lived there, we have to use it in the 1980s house much more often-it doesn't have the windows situated to get cross breezes and often they're placed so that they let in MORE heat, not reduce the heat in the house.

[cathmom]

On AC/Heat the type of housing makes a difference. I'm in an area where people die when they don't have A/C in the summer-and it's not people living in houses build before A/C was common. We moved from a house built in the 1940s to one built in the 1980s, and while both had A/C by the time we lived there, we have to use it in the 1980s house much more often-it doesn't have the windows situated to get cross breezes and often they're placed so that they let in MORE heat, not reduce the heat in the house.

 

Exactly! Houses are not built to be cool/warm anymore. Same with our minivan - if we didn't have A/C in it, we couldn't go out in the summer or my children in the back would die of heatstroke! There aren't any windows that can be rolled down.

[5kidsforME]

I was surprised at the results. I was surprised at the number of people who think lack of refrigerator or a/c = poverty.

 

I realise that most Americans and Canadians don't think of true poverty (3rd world impoverishment) when answering these types of questions. I realise it asked for one's "perception of poverty" and that's a very subjective thing. I guess I'm just surprised that so many of the perceptions were so bourgeois and self-centred.

 

I am quite surprised myself about how people think of a/c. It is a luxury, people live in VERY hot places, hotter than Texas, and they don't have a/c.

[twoforjoy]

I am quite surprised myself about how people think of a/c. It is a luxury, people live in VERY hot places, hotter than Texas, and they don't have a/c.

 

The questions weren't asking if these things were needs or luxuries, though, but about whether not having them meant somebody was impoverished.

 

Toy cars are a luxury. A kid won't die because he has no Hot Wheels. But, if a family can't afford to buy their kids a couple of toy cars, they are almost certainly impoverished. It's not that the kid is impoverished because he doesn't have Hot Wheels, as if the lack of Hot Wheels is the cause of his impoverishment, but it would almost definitely be a symptom/sign of his being impoverished.

 

Air conditioners are not outrageously expensive, especially since you can get them used. If a person would really like an a/c, but can't afford one, they're probably impoverished, because a non-impoverished person could probably manage to scrape together the money for one. Same with TVs and microwaves. Luxuries, yes, in the sense that they aren't needs. But, both are so readily and cheaply available that if a person wanted one and didn't have the money for it, they would most likely be impoverished.

[swellmomma]

On AC/Heat the type of housing makes a difference. I'm in an area where people die when they don't have A/C in the summer-and it's not people living in houses build before A/C was common. We moved from a house built in the 1940s to one built in the 1980s, and while both had A/C by the time we lived there, we have to use it in the 1980s house much more often-it doesn't have the windows situated to get cross breezes and often they're placed so that they let in MORE heat, not reduce the heat in the house.

 

 

I am facing the opposite issue. I live in a very cold climate in the winter. My old house was built in the late 70s and stayed fairly warm even without turning up the heat too much, it was well insulated, storm windows etc. The house I am in now was built in 1930 with additions. None of the additions have insulation in the walls, the ceiling throughout the house has little insulation, the windows are drafty, though I think all the single panes have been replaced with dbls. Out here heat is the key not A/C. If you can not afford to pay for heat, and or to properyly winterize your home you are impoverished. In my old place it was less noticeable because I could pick up a window kit at the dollar store for the 1 window that needed a better seal and keep the heat down low. The temperatures are not even below zero out here yet and already I am having trouble keeping the house warm. 1 whole side of the house is like walking into a garage (you know that cold that gets you), thankfully it is not the bedroom side. I do get lovely cross breezes in the summer though. :tongue_smilie:

[weaver_67579]

I see 43% Republicans, and most responses with around 90% agreement. I don't see only Republicans voting, but I do see most voters with similar opinions.

 

I just re-looked at the results. I happen to be Republican-what does that have to do with if I think not having ac doesn't make you impoverished... or any of the other questions? I know plenty that are not Republican and wouldn't think not having TV, ac...makes someone impoverished-some of them don't have them.

Edited October 23, 2011 by weaver_67579

[Annabel Lee]

Well shoot, I thought my caveat at the beginning of my other post would make a difference. I'll just repeat it: I looked at each question individually, in isolation, not at the larger, complex picture of poverty in 1st world countries. I answered each question as if it was being asked like this: Does not having xyz mean you're impoverished?

 

I only gave those examples to show various ways to do things - cooking over a fire (I meant a literal fire that you build outside, and if you can't keep one going outside, then build a woodstove, not a fancy fireplace, out of an old 50-gal. barrell [my dad did]), canning/smoking/drying food, etc. to simply put those ideas out there. I've lived in rural deciduous & coniferous forests and in some of the largest cities in the U.S. So, no, I don't expect someone in NYC to try building a fire to cook over.

 

The examples of other ways to do things were to question the broader definition of poverty. A native Alaskan in a bush village who wants to keep the old ways of subsistence living would not consider most of the things on the survey necessary. Probably neither would people of other cultures living similarly in other climates.

 

I don't disagree with the validity that poverty exists in 1st world countries, hurts people deeply, and is an extremely hard struggle. A PP mentioned the person who suggested cooking food over an open fire... that was me. I didn't mean a fireplace, and I wasn't even having the same discussion. I was simply offering ideas like the ones above for an alternate look at lifestyles - what constitutes impoverished to one might be the norm for another, but that has nothing to do with my views on the poor in America, Canada, England, etc. The things that poster seemed (maybe it only seemed that way to me and wasn't what they meant?) to assume about what I must think about the poor are way off.

 

I absolutely don't look at the poor and think, well if only they'd just work harder, build a fire, go shoot a moose, etc. The idea is repulsive and ridiculous.